You cited the New York constitution, not the federal constitution. Let me fix it for you. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This does not restrict gun ownership to members of an official militia. It states that because well regulated (a term frequently used in the time to describe things that are well-equipped and well-functioning) militias are important to a free state's security, the right of the people shall not be infringed. The founders were very vocal about this sort of thing--they viewed a well-equipped and prepared citizenry as the ultimate defense against tyranny. If you disagree, take it up with their writings.
So does banning "assault" rifles but that doesn't seem to stop some people from trying. Which is why I asked the question I did. If we are going to just say screw the Constitution and advocate banning certain types of firearms then why aren't people trying to ban the types of guns that kill the most people? Wouldn't that make more sense? Like I said, if more people get into fatal car crashes in Toyota Corolla's than any other car then how much sense would it make to say lets ban Ford Mustangs?
"Assault weapons" are only extremely rarely used for murder, no matter which of the many definitions you use. How on earth are they a "nice starting spot"?
Why would people start at the bottom of the list if public safety is the real concern here? According to the FBI database, in the year 2014 there were 5562 murders in the US by handguns, 262 by shotguns, and 248 by rifles. I'll do some basic math here. You are approximately 22x more likely to get murdered with a pistol than you are by a rifle or a shotgun. If my safety as a citizen is their concern, they are advocating we ban the weapon that I am 22x LESS LIKELY to be killed by? How much sense does that logically make?
its about image, americans have a misconception that guns are protecting them. When obviously the reverse is true, guns are killing them. Machine guns look the worst nor do they have much of an image of self defence. Thus, start at the easiest thing to ban and work your way down the list, until you can live in a happy peaceful land like me
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. But either way I believe you should do a bit of research on US crime rates over the last 20 years in all categories. Also do some research on the amount of documented cases of citizens preventing violent crime with the use of firearms. I believe what you find may come as a shock to you.
Assuming you're not being sarcastic the opposite is true. If guns are really the issue then we should have the highest crime and murder rate. Also I thought it was about actually doing something rather than make everyone FEEL safe. And yet you almost never seen them in crimes. Fantasy land. You crime rate rose when your guns were banned mostly.
because there is less of them they are easier to ban, less people are put off by it. As for americas incredibly low crime and murder rate, I think you guys get a pretty impressive number done compared to other first world nations. Unless you want to compare yourself with mexico or africa now?
You'd be surprised how many would be ticked off by an AWB. Besides this goes against the second amendment. You mean like the UK where they have more crime rate ratio than we do? We have a declining crime rate despite the increase in gun purchases. What's up with that? Not only that but are declining rate is faster than yours when you guys banned guns on a wholesale.
I believe the answer is not a "ban" on any firearm commonly used by the people. It's apparent that all out bans don't pass the Supreme Court on weapons you can bear or carry. What does pass, is regulation. Here is the summary finding of Justice Scalia on a ban vs regulation for a handgun, which is much more applicable to any other fire arm. It definitely supports the idea of regulation. It clearly says, that if Heller is qualified, he can register his hand gun and have a qualifying license to carry the gun at home. The finding did not restrict the city from requiring a license and gun registration for a gun out side of the home. It's obvious. Gun registration and licensing are constitutional. This is now a legislative matter. Machine guns are not banned. They are regulated and have been for over 80 years. Now it's up to the legislature to pass laws......the constitutionality of gun registration and licensing is moot. It's been found constitutional to do it. Page 2, paragraph 2 of the ruling and the following ; " In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful fire(*) arm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the Dis(*) trict must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."
He just let his real reason slip. He isn't concerned with crime, he wants a starting point to get rid of the rest of the guns. - - - Updated - - - Why wouldn't we compare ourselves to those two countries? Are the people there lesser human beings somehow?
Define assault weapons as there are two definitions I see used where one is correct while the other is not.
You are correct. The left has intentionally muddied the waters. An assault weapon is fully automatic, like a machine gun. The so called assault weapons that anti gun folks want to ban is a semi auto version that has only cosmetic similarities of real assault weapons.
I see an assault weapon as a selective fire weapon which means that an AR-15 at best is an assault "style" rifle. The funny thing is that the Mini-14 ranch rifle can be modded out to be basically like the AR-15 yet I never hear people going nuts over the Mini-14 yet the the two firearms are basically the same except the Mini-14 looks less menacing.
Incorrect. Whether or not registration and licensing passes constitutional muster was never discussed in the Heller decision, because it was never challenged as being unconstitutional.
Easy: 'Assault weapons' are low-hanging fruit, and a first step. Never mind that there's no sound reason to ban them. - - - Updated - - - As noted: There's no sound reason to ban 'assault weapons'. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Except of course that this cannot be legally done here. - - - Updated - - - For every gun used to commit a murder in the US yesterday, 16.4 million were not. Your point, whatever it was, negated.
not just murders, its not very fun to live through a gun shot. And its guns in actual use. Guns buried in the ground are not to much of a problem, its people walking around with guns, living their life either in fear of guns, or using guns to overcome their fear of other people havingt guns which is the issue.
"Incorrect. Whether or not registration and licensing passes constitutional muster was never discussed in the Heller decision, because it was never challenged as being unconstitutional." So, you disagree with the Supreme Court, wow. It doesn't matter what is challenged, the Supreme Court makes a ruling. Read it. They ruled on the process to be used which included regulation. Or, is reading too much to ask ? Tell me you can't read. That would be more believable them your actual answer. You are way inside the ignorance bubble.
We must be doing something right. Our crime trajectory has been moving in the right direction consistently for over 20 years. The fact that only about sixty percent of homicides are committed with firearms pretty much that America has a cultural violence problem. Not a gun problem. Most of the gun violence occurs in the communities that poor, black, and drug infested. Approx 70 percent of these ghetto murders are perpetrated by thugs with previous arrests and are not allowed to own guns. The moral of the story is that if you are not affiliated with gang bangers, drug dealers or other criminal elements, you are moving through life here with what is effectively similar crime stats of similar countries.
Let's deal in reality. The people legally walking around with guns are not committing crimes. You are identifying criminals carrying guns. They aren't carrying because they because of what you describe. They carry because they are tools of their trade.
I guess to you the Supreme Court is the supreme being. They've once declared slavery was ok. Would've you agreed with them if you was living back then?
OC you and I both deal in reality, we just have a very different opinion as to guns. Its not just about crimes, also accidents as well.
